Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Is there a reason why an old riscv toolchain is recommended in the README.md? #371

Open
ratzupaltuff opened this issue Nov 28, 2023 · 2 comments
Labels

Comments

@ratzupaltuff
Copy link

Hi,
in the Readme in the RiscV toolchain section

$ wget https://static.dev.sifive.com/dev-tools/riscv64-unknown-elf-gcc-8.1.0-2019.01.0-x86_64-linux-ubuntu14.tar.gz
an old Toolchain release with gcc 8.1.0 is recommended. There are some issues that used that version and it didn't work:
#333
#308

I have the same problem too now and I was wondering if there is a reason to recommend this old version?
Is there any reason not to recommend a newer version that is known to work? Maybe one could add a note that "there may be newer versions available, please check yourself if you encounter problems" in the readme, when updating the link is not feasable.

Thank you for your feedback!

@Dolu1990
Copy link
Contributor

Dolu1990 commented Dec 4, 2023

Mostly it was never updated. The only thing that that version has for it, is that its gdb support the custom debug with float point combination. Else, there should be no issue using the last versions of GCC.

It seems that https://xpack.github.io/dev-tools/riscv-none-elf-gcc/install/ should be good.

Could you give a try ?

@ratzupaltuff
Copy link
Author

Thank you for your feedback! If I have problems again, I will try it. For now I will use the riscv64-elf-ubuntu-22.04-gcc-nightly-2023.11.22-nightly.tar.gz toolchain from https://github.com/riscv-collab/riscv-gnu-toolchain/releases/tag/2023.11.22 which is working as expected :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants